City of Fullerton Conspires to Silence Free Press Following Hung Jury in #LivestreamOnTrial

After the jury returned a hung verdict, the Fullerton district attorney announced their intent to retry independent journalist livestreamers AJ Redkey and PM Beers for their presence at the January 18, 2014 protests of the police murder of Kelly Thomas. #FilmThePolice #FreeThePress #LivestreamOnTrial #opFullerton

Following the January 2014 acquittal of Fullerton police
officers Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli for beating Kelly Thomas to death, outraged
people took to the streets for a day of protest against police murder and
violence against the unarmed citizenry.

Starting in the early morning of January 18, 2014 , signs
with messages such as “If You’re Not Outraged, You’re Not Paying Attention” and
“We Want Justice” began to appear outside the police station and Fullerton City
Hall. One sign captioned “I Beat Kelly Thomas to Death – I’m The Victim” compared
a photo of Kelly’s brutally crushed face and neck to the minor arm injury
claimed by one of his assailants. At the morning assembly in Kelly’s honor, his
sister Tina thanked the assembled protesters for keeping her brother's memory
alive.

After hours of freedom of expression by several hundred concerned citizens, the Fullerton Police
Department declared the assembly to be unlawful on the grounds that two people had
been arrested for vandalism (including graffiti on the police headquarters) and
a potentially “violent” scuffle had broken out
between a protester and a KCBS camera operator. Armored tanks and battalions of
riot cops entered the scene. Protesters were ordered to disperse from the intersection
of Highland and Commonwealth in downtown Fullerton.

A crowd of over two hundred people thinned into smaller numbers.
According to the OC Weekly, a group of about 75 people headed towards Kelly’s Corner, to the bus depot where police officers Manuel
Ramos, Jay Cicinelli, and Joseph Wolfe beat Kelly Thomas to death on July 5,
2011. Hours later, as night fell, people who attempted to march back to the police
station reported it was still blocked by a line of riot cops bearing batons, pepper
spray, zip-tie handcuffs, and “less-lethal weapons” such as rubber bullet
shotguns.

Livestreamer PM Beers interviewed a witness whose friend had
just been snatched off the street by police. After following police who got out of
a patrol car, she witnessed the arrest of another one of the people with whom
she had been marching all day. When she tried to leave the scene herself, she
ended up streaming her own arrest live across the Internet.

Police told the media that they arrested seven people
Saturday night for failure to disperse, and that three people had been arrested
on other charges earlier in the afternoon. As usual, all the evening arrests occurred after
the mainstream media cameras had left the scene.

Yes, you read that right. Indepdendent journalist AJ Redkey was
arrested for “failure to disperse” nearly four months after he left (or
dispersed from) the area of downtown Fullerton.

Independent journalist AJ Redkey was arrested for “failure to disperse” nearly four months after he left (or dispersed from) the area of downtown Fullerton.

Fullerton escalated their assault against freedom of the
press by prosecuting Beers and Redkey in a jury trial that began on March 16,
2015. Charged with violating California penal code section 409 (failure to disperse from unlawful assembly), the defendants
face a maximum of 6 months in jail if convicted of the misdemeanor charge. A jury
of ten women and two men was empanelled for three days of trial arguments
beginning March 17, 2015.

Deputy District Attorney Matt Mattis presented extensive
evidence about three other events that day in Fullerton: the vandalism of the
small business Slidebar, graffiti spray-painted on the police department, and
the confrontation between a bandana-wearing protester and a member of the KCBS
camera crew. The convicted perpetrators of those crimes were named throughout
the trial. DA Mattis clearly stated defendants Redkey and Beers were never
violent and never vandalized, but argued they were guilty of a crime for being
present at a location that was declared to be an “unlawful assembly” and
willfully remaining after the order was given.

The district attorney pointed out in closing arguments that
he never mentioned the First Amendment because it was “not relevant” to this
case. During the trial, defense attorney Derek Bercher described PM Beers as an
“embedded” journalist providing an unfiltered view from ground level. Defense attorney
John Raphling presented AJ Redkey’s style as “Comedy Central” instead of “Fox
News or MSNBC” journalism.

According to the prosecution’s theory of the crime, out of
200 protesters, “197 were fine” but “there were three bad actors” who “ruined
it for everybody,” therefore meeting the requirements for an unlawful assembly.
The defense countered that if one person breaks a window after a baseball game,
the entire assembly is not rendered unlawful.

Addressing the legal nature of the assembly, defense counsel observed, “willful lawbreakers don’t livestream” their activities. Also, “guess what folks, someone has to be the last to disperse.”

The district attorney narrowed the definition of terms in his closing argument: “It isn’t dispersing when you move at the
end of a baton,” he said, in reference to defendant Redkey.

Defense attorney Bercher declared, “There is no playbook for
protesting,” after asking jury to recall that the police witnesses had discussed
their own rules of engagement. “Protesters have to rely on the behavior of the
police” who were playing a “cat and mouse game” with the crowd on the streets
of Fullerton that day.

Attorney Ralphing reminded the jury how his client, Mr.
Redkey, asked during one part of the video evidence if he was standing far
enough away, and received a “you’re good” in response from one riot cop. The police
“gave a signal they would be patient” with their multiple warnings, and they “can’t
come in court and change the rules and say immediately means a certain amount
of time.”

Both defense attorneys told the jury the assembly of Saturday, January 18, 2014 in Fullerton was not unlawful in nature; therefore no crime was committed because penal code 409 does not apply.

After deliberating for part of the afternoon of Thursday, March 19th and the morning of Monday, March 23rd, the jury reported that they
were unable to reach a verdict. The jury never reached the point of
deliberating the guilt of either defendant; they deadlocked 11-1 deciding
whether the assembly was unlawful or not.

In other words, one person held firm in their conviction
that the assembly was fully lawful in nature.

After a recess for lunch, the DA told the court, "The
people of the state of California intend to retry the case."

Why is the City of Fullerton allocating so many resources to
harass people for the exercise of their constitutionally-guaranteed First
Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and press? Both PM Beers and
AJ Redkey have spoken out against police brutality and the criminalization of
the homeless during the public commentary period of Fullerton City Council
meetings. Both have also devoted hundreds of hours to filming the police and
encourage others to pick up their cameras and “be the media,” as well.

Why is the City of Fullerton allocating so many resources to harass people for the exercise of their constitutionally-guaranteed First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and press?

As AJ Redkey explained on The Anti-Media Radio, “The biggest
threat to them is the fact that there is no editor. There is nobody manipulating
the story so one side looks better than the other.” He continued, “Not only do
we have no editors, but tomorrow there will be another 25 livestreamers filming
the inadequacies of police departments, checking them, keeping them real. If I was
a machine that liked to operate behind closed doors, I would love for it to
continue working like it is.”

“Everybody needs to livestream,” says PM Beers.

Citizen media volunteers like Redkey and Beers provide critical transparency during riskiest time of any protest—when police set up skirmish lines.

The public official prosecuting this case called the First
Amendment “not relevant.” The Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law abridging
the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with
the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a
governmental redress of grievances.

Aware observers of the court-industrial
complex note penal code 409 seems only ever to be used against freedom of
assembly, as well as free speech and free press activity—how is this law
constitutional in the first place?!?

Law enforcement and the city government of Fullerton comprise
a vast continuing criminal enterprise terrorizing independent thinkers. Taxpayer
dollars were used to send multiple armored tanks and battalions of police in
riot gear to arrest and jail people engaged in freedom of expression on January
18, 2014. Even more resources were devoted to kidnapping one more journalist
nearly four months after the event. Since then, the district attorney’s office
has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take these two independent
journalists to trial, only to lose, and has now declared intent to tie up the
court system further with these frivolous charges. By approving the budget for
these police activities, the city council is making the taxpayers at large a
part of their conspiracy to criminalize people for legal activities such as
peaceful assembly and filming the police.

A pre-trial conference is set for April 17 at the North
Justice Center (Fullerton, CA) in the re-filed cases of People v. Beers and
People v. Redkey. Everyone is encouraged to call the Orange County DA at (714)
773-4480 to let them know how you feel about spending more tax dollars to retry a
misdemeanor case resulting from peaceful, legal journalistic expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.